Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Why do I jump into these shark infested waters?? No clue, but for the fun of debate.
I read Levine's article, and all of the editorial responses it has brought about in the last three issues since. Levine, in the most recent issue (N&S Vol. 5) makes a lengthy rebuttal once again. And, honestly, this horse is getting beat pretty hard (my apologies to you cavalrymen out there.)
I have just seen too much evidence to refute black combat soldiers and not enough to support it. For instance, there is the account of Dr. Steiner of the USSC of approximately 3000 armed blacks marching through Frederick during the Maryland Campaign of 1862. Yet there is no evidence to prove that they were actually soldiers and not body servants carrying their masters arms. If they were combat soldiers, where did they fight? Antietam (or Sharpsburg) is one of the best documented battles there is. Lee had to throw every available man into the fight just to keep from losing, and if there were 3000 black combat troops, where were they in the battle? There isn't anywhere that I have read of any of the Union soldiers claiming to have encounted atleast a brigade of black Confederate troops. So unless Lee decided not to use all his men (doubtful, since he faced an army twice his size) they were not soldiers at all. The same goes for claims of thousands of black troops seen marching to Gettysburg. If they were there, where did they fight?
There is evidence to blacks being part of home guard units (the 1st Louisiana Native Guard and a unit of blacks around Mobile, AL) and a few scattered here or there. But there are no where near the thousands that are being claimed my some. The evidence isn't there. Some claim that it is because it was destroyed. How could every single letter, every single diary entry have been destroyed? It isn't feasible. In the 5700 sq. feet of records from the Civil War, there is almost nothing that points to thousands of black confederates.
Battalion, I can see where you are trying to go with your argument. Okay, so both are listed as buglers, both are listed as colored, and one is from opposite sides. Now, here is where you must lay down the burden of proof. One must determine if either was under arms, in combat, on a regular basis. A bugler is normally retained with the commander and his staff, so when an order is given, such as advance, retreat, etc. he can sound the call. Union buglers were normally armed, just as a regular trooper would have been. So, was James Jackson armed? Did he carry a saber, pistol, rifle, shotgun, all of the above? Did he actively participate in loading of the cannon? Or was he just handy with a bugle and attached to an artillery unit to sound calls for the men? One must determine that. If he didn't bear arms, in my opinion, he is not a soldier, even if listed as one.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
A rather thoughty, awesome post J Man. Preciate it. Very much so. We are given numbers and such, but none of the letters home or contemporary accounts talk about fighting black Confederate soldiers. At least, none that I've encountered. To be sure, it remains that there must have been some, I just haven't seen it.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
So Jackson was discharged as a "soldier." What was he before he was discharged? Examine his muster cards for his term of service. See if it consistently says musician at tell me at what point in time he was changed to soldier
The muster rolls refer to all named (whether they are Private, Bugler, Teamster, etc) on the roll as 'soldier'
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
I have just seen too much evidence to refute black combat soldiers and not enough to support it. For instance, there is the account of Dr. Steiner of the USSC of approximately 3000 armed blacks marching through Frederick during the Maryland Campaign of 1862. Yet there is no evidence to prove that they were actually soldiers and not body servants carrying their masters arms. If they were combat soldiers, where did they fight? Antietam (or Sharpsburg) is one of the best documented battles there is. Lee had to throw every available man into the fight just to keep from losing, and if there were 3000 black combat troops, where were they in the battle? There isn't anywhere that I have read of any of the Union soldiers claiming to have encounted atleast a brigade of black Confederate troops. So unless Lee decided not to use all his men (doubtful, since he faced an army twice his size) they were not soldiers at all. The same goes for claims of thousands of black troops seen marching to Gettysburg. If they were there, where did they fight?
19 'contrabands' were captured at Antietam. Union reports say they were teamsters.
Problem with that is I have found no report of a Confederate wagon train being captured or even attacked at Antietam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Man0507
Battalion, I can see where you are trying to go with your argument. Okay, so both are listed as buglers, both are listed as colored, and one is from opposite sides. Now, here is where you must lay down the burden of proof. One must determine if either was under arms, in combat, on a regular basis. A bugler is normally retained with the commander and his staff, so when an order is given, such as advance, retreat, etc. he can sound the call. Union buglers were normally armed, just as a regular trooper would have been. So, was James Jackson armed? Did he carry a saber, pistol, rifle, shotgun, all of the above? Did he actively participate in loading of the cannon? Or was he just handy with a bugle and attached to an artillery unit to sound calls for the men? One must determine that. If he didn't bear arms, in my opinion
Rarely do individual service records (Union or Confederate) have information about arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Man0507
he is not a soldier, even if listed as one.
So what you are saying is...even if the Confederate army calls him a soldier...you are not.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
19 'contrabands' were captured at Antietam. Union reports say they were teamsters.
Problem with that is I have found no report of a Confederate wagon train being captured or even attacked at Antietam.
Rarely do individual service records (Union or Confederate) have information about arms.
So what you are saying is...even if the Confederate army calls him a soldier...you are not.
Col. Benjamin F. "Grimes" Davis captured a wagon train on the night of the night of the 15th. He reported that there were 40 teamsters captured. I am going through what records I can, but I will assume that there were possibly some blacks among those teamsters.
No, service records do not normally carry that information. That is why the burden of proof is on the researcher. You dig deeper. You look up personal letters from other men in said unit and see if the said individual did participate in actual combat, not just tooting his bugle.
And in a sense, yes, it is what I am saying, and in a sense, no. They could call him the Emperor of China, and that doesn't make it so. If there is record that he participated in combat, I am willing to eat my crow. But if he is not armed, or, in Jackson's case, if he did not actively participate in loading the guns or carrying the ammunition, then he is not a soldier.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Have found that crow, properly dry-aged goes well with a touch of horseradish and a brisk Chardonnay.
Meanwhile, don't be shopping for one J Man. The main argument seems to be the definition of a soldier. It would seem that every black serving in any capacity with the Confederate army is considered a soldier. I usually figure that if he was paid, he was a soldier. If he was not, he was a "servant." With you, were someone facing a regiment of black soldiers, I'd figure someone would have mentioned it.
I'll have to expect that there were black confederates fighting in the ranks. But I don't call unpaid teamsters, servants and musicians soldiers.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Have found that crow, properly dry-aged goes well with a touch of horseradish and a brisk Chardonnay.
Meanwhile, don't be shopping for one J Man. The main argument seems to be the definition of a soldier. It would seem that every black serving in any capacity with the Confederate army is considered a soldier. I usually figure that if he was paid, he was a soldier. If he was not, he was a "servant." With you, were someone facing a regiment of black soldiers, I'd figure someone would have mentioned it.
I'll have to expect that there were black confederates fighting in the ranks. But I don't call unpaid teamsters, servants and musicians soldiers.
ole
Even paid servants and teamsters are not soldiers -- unless they were enlisted in the Army. If you want to count those people, you'd have to count all those escaped slaves, hired teamsters, and camp servants travelling around with the Union Army as "soldiers" -- and they were not. Certainly not counted as such by the Union army or other foreign armies using people in similar ways, so why would the world count them as such in the Confederate Army.
In the Confederacy, free Blacks could make many times as much money by hiring out to the Army as civilian teamsters -- so why, exactly, would they join the Army to be used as teamsters for less money?
Even in 1864, when Jefferson Davis and the Congress allowed the Army to organize slaves as laborers to dig trenches, etc. they refused to call them soldiers. They would not use military ranks or unit names for them. They were organized into "gangs". They were commanded by white men with titles like "boss" and "overseer" and "supervisor". And if the white men assigned messed up, they could be punished by being transferred BACK to the Army, so clearly they weren't serving as soldiers.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
There seems to be a bit of controversy over the muster or is it pension rolls.
Are blacks sometimes listed on the pension rolls in the South as "soldier" and why if they served in noncombat roles?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Col. Benjamin F. "Grimes" Davis captured a wagon train on the night of the night of the 15th. He reported that there were 40 teamsters captured. I am going through what records I can, but I will assume that there were possibly some blacks among those teamsters.
But the reports say they were captured at the Battle of Antietam (Sept. 17)-
"...negroes were captured on the battle-field at Antietam and delivered as prisoners of war at Aiken’s Landing to the Confederate authorities, and receipted for and counted in exchange..."
Ludlow (Federal) to Ould (Confederate), 14 June 1863. (Ludlow and Ould were agents for the exchange of prisoners.)
War of the Rebellion...Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 2, Volume 6, page 17
I'm not claiming these to be soldiers. Based on reports they were servants ('contrabands').
You brought up the subject of Antietam so I gave you what information I had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Man0507
And in a sense, yes, it is what I am saying, and in a sense, no. They could call him the Emperor of China, and that doesn't make it so. If there is record that he participated in combat, I am willing to eat my crow. But if he is not armed, or, in Jackson's case, if he did not actively participate in loading the guns or carrying the ammunition, then he is not a soldier.
The Confederate army by their own documents classifies him a soldier. Carrying a weapon is not necessary.
Enlisted, mustered into service, and subject to military law is the basic definition of a soldier.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
New York Times, 27 September 1861
Last edited by Battalion : 03-05-2008 at 08:57 AM.
There seems to be a bit of controversy over the muster or is it pension rolls.
Are blacks sometimes listed on the pension rolls in the South as "soldier" and why if they served in noncombat roles?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
The information in service records is from muster rolls, hospitals, POW, etc. -original documents produced during the war.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
